SoxProspects News
|
|
|
|
Legal
Forum Ground Rules
The views expressed by the members of this Forum do not necessarily reflect the views of SoxProspects, LLC.
© 2003-2024 SoxProspects, LLC
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Home | Search | My Profile | Messages | Members | Help |
Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.
Neyer: should MLB change rules to cut strikeouts?
steveofbradenton
Veteran
Watching Spring Training, the FCL, and the Florida State League
Posts: 1,826
|
Post by steveofbradenton on Feb 28, 2014 15:13:26 GMT -5
After reading this article, I thought it would be interesting to get everyone's take on what Rob Neyer thinks is necessary.....a change of the rules so there is not so many strikeouts. Mr. Neyer believes that strikeouts, at least too many, are boring. I remember when they lowered the mound because of the other-worldly performances by guys like Koufax and Bob Gibson. They wanted to infuse more offense into the game. I'm wondering if Rob Neyer had his way if we would have pitchers pitching off of flat ground. msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/is-game-due-for-rule-change-to-cut-down-on-too-many-k-s-022814Personally, I love good pitched games. For me a dominant pitching performance is just as exciting as any 10 to 8 ball game. Neyer's idea of making the plate smaller, changing the strike zone even more, etc. sort of makes me upset. The GAME is beautiful as it is! Of course, this is my opinion. What is yours?
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Feb 28, 2014 15:29:27 GMT -5
Gee, how about granting first base to batters who foul off three pitches in a row when there are two strikes?
I hate it when they mess with the game. It can completely screw over teams who have built farm systems based on current rules.
|
|
|
Post by bjb406 on Feb 28, 2014 16:44:55 GMT -5
thats a terrible idea. It would increase offense mainly because there would be so many walks, and that's not exciting.
I have always had the suspicion that the biggest reason for the offensive explosion in the late 90's was not steroids, but because they were juicing the ball to make the game more exciting, ie. winding it tighter, thus making it more rigid so it bounces farther off the bat. Then in the mid 2000's when they needed to convince the world that the drug testing program was making a difference, they just stopped winding it so tight.
Whether or not that is actually what happened before, it would be a better way of increasing offense now.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Feb 28, 2014 17:33:54 GMT -5
How about a truly uniform strike zone with a scanner on the plate and chip in the ball. Zone based on each player's height/stance, which is defined by the rulebook. Those kinds of adjustments can be made batter to batter in milliseconds. Homeplate umps remain to make other calls (safe/out/hbp/balk etc), which could be verified by replay. I strongly believe this would improve the games on both sides of the ball as pitchers and hitters will not have to adjust to the strike zone of the day (or of the moment if Bucknor or West are behind the plate), and it will neither shrink nor grow in later innings.
OK, you can stop laughing now.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Feb 28, 2014 17:34:26 GMT -5
Deford's idea would increase walks. Neyer is specifically trying to find a solution that doesn't increase walks.
Personally, while strikeouts are going up and up and it isn't something I necessarily enjoy, I don't think it's reached a point where there is an imbalance in the game. I think the biggest difference in the game now as opposed to 20 years ago is that teams understand that a strikeout isn't necessarily worse than any other out, so they are more willing to employ the Mike Napoli's and (in his prime) Mark Reynolds' of the world. Napoli strikes out a ton, but he pretty clearly made the Red Sox better in 2013. So here we are.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Feb 28, 2014 17:39:22 GMT -5
These are the kind of articles we get during the dead period of the offseason when there's nothing to discuss but writers have to put something out to get pageviews.
|
|
steveofbradenton
Veteran
Watching Spring Training, the FCL, and the Florida State League
Posts: 1,826
|
Post by steveofbradenton on Feb 28, 2014 18:50:02 GMT -5
I think all of us are drawn to this game of baseball because of its intricacies. Creating a problem to fix a problem that doesn't exist is pretty stupid. I'd agree that some players have taken the "swing for the fences" philosophy too far. Adam Dunn and Mark Reynolds to name just two players are so one dimensional and I would never want that type of player on one of my teams, but every player has a unique place in the game and gives fodder for discussion. I love seeing an over-powering type pitching performance (like Matt Harvey) as much as seeing Big Papi hit two bombs. The game is beautiful just the way it is. Leave it alone Rob Neyer.
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Feb 28, 2014 20:02:30 GMT -5
I think there are a few reasons for the increase in Ks, including a systematic change in the strike zone. It wouldn't surprise me at all if, with the PED suspensions in the rear view mirror, we started to see a reduction in the K rate, and a bit more offense.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Feb 28, 2014 20:58:32 GMT -5
This is silly. A few years back when ERAs were around 5 and homers felt cheap the idea was to raise the mound or do something to deflate the inflated offense. Now offensive levels are near a normal level of roughly 4.5 runs per game and ERAs hover around 4 and suddenly there's talk about decreasing strikeouts?
I honestly think the reason why there are so many strikeouts is because the stigma of striking out isn't so damning anymore. Napoli fanned 187 times but it didn't matter because we're in an age where we know that a player can be whifftastic but still be a good offensive player. Back then I think it was majorly frowned on if a player struck out 100 times in a season. I guess the idea of giving yourself up to hit a routine ground ball to 2b was considered the honorable thing. I think there's been a shift in focus to the three true outcomes because two of them are positive and one is simply just an out with the only difference being that it can't advance a baserunner but it won't result in a GIDP either.
I think Ks can be exciting, especially from a pitching standpoint - don't remember anybody complaining when Pedro whiffed 17 Yankees or Clemens struck out 20 batters twice without any walks in either game. With fewer outs advancing baserunners it puts more of the onus on stolen bases to advance runners and that isn't a bad thing either.
I think baseball is fine as it is.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Feb 28, 2014 22:55:27 GMT -5
I think there are a few reasons for the increase in Ks, including a systematic change in the strike zone. It wouldn't surprise me at all if, with the PED suspensions in the rear view mirror, we started to see a reduction in the K rate, and a bit more offense. It would be the first time in baseball history. I think Neyer has a point. Modern baseball is characterized by relatively low run-scoring and historically low rates of the ball being put in play. We've gone back to 80s levels of run scoring, but we're not playing 80s-style ball. It's 90s-style take-and-rake baseball, with a lot less rake. Leads tend to be safe (particularly in the late innings, where Ks are up the most) and fielding is de-emphasized. In other words, it's not a particularly entertaining brand of baseball. We may not have reached a point where Most of the major rule changes in the history of baseball have favored increased run scoring (the DH and the lowering of the mound being prime examples). I wouldn't be at all surprised to see more of that in the near future, and I wouldn't be particularly opposed to it either.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Mar 1, 2014 8:27:19 GMT -5
Not sure how it would be done, but I probably would like not seeing Joe Maddon use 11 pitchers in one game. Talk about making games longer...
I've been begging to expand roster size to 26 for awhile, but that's not the answer because every team would simply go with 14 pitchers. Maybe they should reduce roster size to 24.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Mar 1, 2014 10:38:34 GMT -5
They could expand rosters and limit staff size to 13. They could also limit the number of pitching changes per inning without making things too restrictive by putting caveats in it. Something like two changes per first 9 batters then you get another every 4 or something.
|
|
|
Post by raftsox on Mar 3, 2014 9:19:19 GMT -5
It wouldn't surprise me at all if, with the PED suspensions in the rear view mirror, we started to see a reduction in the K rate. Note: not from FTHWIt would be the first time in baseball history. No it wouldn't be. From 1967-1981 baseball saw a steady decline in k rate. It actually took until 1994 for k rates to reach the same level as 1967. Today's rate is at historic highs though, so it wouldn't be surprising to see some sort of decrease as offenses adjust to the "new" playing environments. Perhaps not to 12%, but 15% wouldn't be surprising. The "take and rake" approach you mention could have some merit as the time period from '93-'06 the ISOp and K rate essentially mirror each other. Since that time however, the K rate has dramatically increase while ISOp has dramatically decreased; both without any apparent change in BB%. Edits: cleaned some things up, including my poor spelling.
|
|
|
Post by mattpicard on Mar 3, 2014 11:27:31 GMT -5
It wouldn't surprise me at all if, with the PED suspensions in the rear view mirror, we started to see a reduction in the K rate. No it wouldn't be. From 1967-1981 baseball saw a steady decline in k rate. It actually took until 1994 for k rates to reach the same level as 1967. Today's rate is at historic highs though, so it wouldn't be surprising to see some sort of decrease as offenses adjust to the "new" playing environments. Perhaps not to 12%, but 15% wouldn't be surprising. The "take and rake" approach you mention could have some merit as the time period from '93-'06 the ISOp and K rate essentially mirror each other. Since that time however, the K rate has dramitically increase while ISOp has dramitically decreased; both without any apparent change in BB%. Year HR/con SLG/con ISO/con
1993 3.13% .478 .166 1994 3.65% .517 .188 1995 3.61% .511 .184 1996 3.89% .525 .193 1997 3.70% .519 .189 1998 3.74% .519 .190 1999 4.06% .533 .200 2000 4.19% .538 .205 2001 4.08% .530 .202 2002 3.77% .514 .192 2003 3.83% .518 .194 2004 4.02% .528 .200 2005 3.70% .514 .189 2006 3.97% .533 .200 2007 3.66% .523 .191 2008 3.64% .519 .190 2009 3.81% .524 .195 2010 3.52% .508 .184 2011 3.47% .504 .182 2012 3.83% .520 .193 2013 3.67% .511 .186
Year K%
1993 15.2% 1994 16.0% 1995 16.3% 1996 16.7% 1997 17.2% 1998 17.0% 1999 16.5% 2000 16.5% 2001 17.5% 2002 17.0% 2003 16.5% 2004 17.0% 2005 16.6% 2006 17.0% 2007 17.2% 2008 17.6% 2009 18.1% 2010 18.6% 2011 18.7% 2012 19.9% 2013 19.9% As the ISO/contact shows, it's really all about the strikeouts. The power is still there, players just can't put the bat on the ball nearly as much. While I'd welcome a reduction back towards K%'s from past decades, even reaching a 15% rate seems impossible for the near future.
|
|
|
Post by raftsox on Mar 3, 2014 11:46:40 GMT -5
As the ISO/contact shows, it's really all about the strikeouts. The power is still there, players just can't put the bat on the ball nearly as much. While I'd welcome a reduction back towards K%'s from past decades, even reaching a 15% rate seems impossible for the near future. Agreed. Cutting 5% off the league average k rate would be years in the undertaking. Interesting side-note: I looked into k% by age range hoping to find that older players struck out more often than younger. It turns out my hypothesis is wrong. During the last 4 seasons, players 25 and under strike out >20% of the time while players 34 and older strike out about 17% of the time.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Mar 3, 2014 11:52:12 GMT -5
A) Am I the only one who would rather see a strikeout than a routine groundout?
B) Couldn't much of this just be a change in the culture of how hitting is taught? It seems like "put the ball in play because you just never know" has ceded to the perhaps more beneficial result of driving up the pitch count unless you get something to hit and staying out of the double play.
|
|
|
Post by mattpicard on Mar 3, 2014 12:10:23 GMT -5
A) Am I the only one who would rather see a strikeout than a routine groundout? B) Couldn't much of this just be a change in the culture of how hitting is taught? It seems like "put the ball in play because you just never know" has ceded to the perhaps more beneficial result of driving up the pitch count unless you get something to hit and staying out of the double play. Mr. Napoli, while conceding that it's tough for him to successfully avoid hitting into double plays, mostly agrees with you: P/PA K% 2008 4.14 25.5% 2009 4.16 23.8% 2010 4.09 26.9% 2011 4.37 19.7% 2012 4.43 30.0% 2013 4.59 32.4%
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Mar 3, 2014 13:12:31 GMT -5
I think Neyer has a point. Modern baseball is characterized by relatively low run-scoring and historically low rates of the ball being put in play. We've gone back to 80s levels of run scoring, but we're not playing 80s-style ball. It's 90s-style take-and-rake baseball, with a lot less rake. Leads tend to be safe (particularly in the late innings, where Ks are up the most) and fielding is de-emphasized. In other words, it's not a particularly entertaining brand of baseball. We may not have reached a point where Can you explain this further to me? I'm genuinely curious why you think a world in which there are fewer balls in play is less exciting. Neyer's article doesn't really explain it that well, either. I understand why people think walks are less exciting than hits, but why are strikeouts less exciting than the average out-on-ball-in-play? Sure, the overall run environment is down significantly, and there's a vague sense that high-scoring games are more exciting than low-scoring games. But I think as much of that is due to the increased use of defensive shifts and superior defensive positioning in general (the league-average BABIP is down from a high of .303 in 2007 to .297 today, for instance) and the clear improvement in pitcher quality (the league-average FB velocity is up to an all-time high of 91.7 MPH, up from 90.3 MPH just seven years ago) than because batters are striking out more (I remember reading pretty extensive research to this effect, but couldn't find it again after a cursory search-- if anyone remembers the source/link, I'd much appreciate it). Maybe if the run environment continues to deflate, we should consider rule changes to bring it back up, but I think blaming hitters for striking out too much is a bit of a red herring.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Mar 3, 2014 13:17:09 GMT -5
Strike outs and walks are boring to watch, especially when you know they're coming. At some point, baseball is about more than just the TTO or else you'd probably be fine watching baseball simulations and determining who wins every championship by which team wins the most after replaying the season 1000 times.
I've actually had the argument with some people that they'd enjoy baseball having a lineup of guys who never hit but walked 4 out of 10 times and struck out 6 out of 10 times. Yay, we win. Exciting.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Mar 3, 2014 13:21:22 GMT -5
I think Neyer has a point. Modern baseball is characterized by relatively low run-scoring and historically low rates of the ball being put in play. We've gone back to 80s levels of run scoring, but we're not playing 80s-style ball. It's 90s-style take-and-rake baseball, with a lot less rake. Leads tend to be safe (particularly in the late innings, where Ks are up the most) and fielding is de-emphasized. In other words, it's not a particularly entertaining brand of baseball. We may not have reached a point where Can you explain this further to me? I'm genuinely curious why you think a world in which there are fewer balls in play is less exciting. Neyer's article doesn't really explain it that well, either. I understand why people think walks are less exciting than hits, but why are strikeouts less exciting than the average out-on-ball-in-play? Because anything can happen when the ball is in play. We wouldn't have gotten the Arod purse swinging incident in 04 if he struck out instead of swatting the ball out of Arroyo's glove.
|
|
|
Post by klostrophobic on Mar 3, 2014 13:44:28 GMT -5
Yeah, but:
|
|
|
Post by elguapo on Mar 3, 2014 14:01:49 GMT -5
Walks are more annoying than K's. I see a lot of pitches where I'm shaking my head along with the pitcher, wondering how it didn't touch the zone. Maybe marginally expanding the strike zone gets bats off the shoulders?
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Mar 3, 2014 14:15:13 GMT -5
Can you explain this further to me? I'm genuinely curious why you think a world in which there are fewer balls in play is less exciting. Neyer's article doesn't really explain it that well, either. I understand why people think walks are less exciting than hits, but why are strikeouts less exciting than the average out-on-ball-in-play? Because anything can happen when the ball is in play. We wouldn't have gotten the Arod purse swinging incident in 04 if he struck out instead of swatting the ball out of Arroyo's glove. I guess, and it's fair to say that the ball being in play is the lynchpin for many of highlights that have somewhat universal appeal (think spectacular defensive plays, runner getting nailed at the plate, etc). It might be a real issue if the strikeout rate doubled or something, but we're taking about a few percentage points on the margin here, and the vast majority of balls put in play are relatively bland groundouts and lazy flies anyways. If the K rate doesn't stabilize at some point in the next few years and guys start regularly striking out 20+% of the time, maybe we can talk, but I don't think we're at a rules-altering crisis yet. PS: one idea that might increase the value of BIP might be to eliminate ground-ball double plays. That would substantially alter the risk/reward of putting the ball in play with runners on base, with the added benefit of reducing the takeout slides/collisions that occur regularly at second base.
|
|
|
Post by Gwell55 on Mar 3, 2014 15:06:53 GMT -5
So gee why not just require that each pitcher is paid an extra million a month and they than are required to throw one duck down the middle per batter when the count reaches one strike with a top speed of 87. If it is all about getting more for less than why not? Maybe we could get more writers to agree to the stupidity of threads like this.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Mar 3, 2014 16:29:24 GMT -5
Strike outs and walks are boring to watch, especially when you know they're coming. At some point, baseball is about more than just the TTO or else you'd probably be fine watching baseball simulations and determining who wins every championship by which team wins the most after replaying the season 1000 times. I've actually had the argument with some people that they'd enjoy baseball having a lineup of guys who never hit but walked 4 out of 10 times and struck out 6 out of 10 times. Yay, we win. Exciting. You wouldn't win this way. Much like a lineup full of 5 WAR defensive players wouldn't win.
|
|
|